Talk:Rationale for the Iraq War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Reference Problems

In the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" section, references are not cited according to the proper format. I would fix this, except I simply don't know how. User:Mewok|(talk) 09:52, October 26 2006

[edit] Human rights

Under the Human Rights heading, I have added the following paragraph:

The U.S. has cited the United Nations condemnation of Hussein's human right abuses as justification for the Iraq invasion. However, the US has done little military action to ease the Darfur conflict, which also involves human rights abuses.[82] The Darfur conflict has taken as many as 400,000 lives and has displaced over 2 million people. [83] In fact, the US has called the human rights abuses in Darfur "genocide," but has done relatively little to stop the genocide. [84] Many have questioned why the US used military action to promote human rights in Iraq while not in Darfur. [85]

This paragraph is well cited. It presents an observation based on facts, and as far as I can see, does not inject any bias. However, I beleieve that some people were against the inclusion of this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke0101 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm bothered by is the implications that the money diverted from the Oil-for-Food (OFF) programme was used to bribe the governments of France, Germany and Russia to oppose the war. I've yet seen no credible source claiming that government policy in these countries was changed due to bribes with money diverted from OFF. The US Senate investigations committee have accused British MP George Galloway and former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua of being rewarded with oil allocations by Saddam Hussein's regime, and Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and former presidential aides Alexander Voloshin and Sergei Issakov, of receiving oil allocations in return for Russian lobbying on Iraq's behalf. The majority of the populations of France and Russia (as well as that of most other countries in the world) supported the policies before these alleged kickbacks were supposed to have taken place. —Gabbe 08:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Working on it. Might take a while.Warren Dew 08:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. The main change was to clarify that sanctions formed a justification for the war because of humanitarian reasons, as mentioned earlier in the article in the discussion of Donald Rumsfeld's outline of reasons for going to war, and not because they succeeded in changing the behavior of the Security Council nations that Saddam favored. The rest of the section was rewritten for clarity as well. I added cites for the official investigation by the Volcker commission into the sanctions; I believe everyone (including the U.N.) considers that source credible in its documentation of the bribery and corruption in the Oil for Food Programme. While Fox News is a perfectly legitimate news source, I ended up removing the Fox News cites because (1) they didn't actually support the previous version of the section anyway, and (2) the sections they did support were tangential to this discussion, and were already covered in the main Oil for Food article (which I also referenced). I also removed the dispute tag since the section is completely rewritten to address the issues mentioned, and there has been no further discussion for over six months; Gabbe, if I misunderstood your reasons for tagging it, feel free to put it (or a more limited tag) back and clarify here.Warren Dew 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

this should still be added as it is very much the truth, with the head trim as there is no need to name names. we only need to clarify there are worst human right abuse that is look the other way, we don't need to say US isn't doing anything because basically nobody else is neither! Akinkhoo (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article is Laced with POV Problems AND Irrelevance/Disinfo

This article is horrible. I was going through it simply picking sections apart to fix typos and improperly formatted links and I'm coming across all sorts of junk. As some examples:

Found in a section "Weapons of Mass Destruction", there is a claim that there is a "general consensus" that the reason for the war being based on false statements was that there was a massive intel failure. This claim is tenuously supported by a few news reports that apparently have little to do with the actual claim. It either needs to be shown that there is some "consensus" by citing actual arguments and claims as such, or removed. One thing that immediately leaps to my mind is Paul Pillar, a respected Ex-CIA official who claimed quite publically that the primary problem was not the faulty intel, but that the Administration cherry-picked details and did not request or receive any comprehensive overview on Iraq.

Found as apparent "support" for the "general consensus" claim above:

On August 14, 2005, The Washington Post published an article titled Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered [37]. The presentation identifies a chemical weapons facility discovered in Iraq and chemical weapons uncovered which were in the process of being classified. The time of instantiation was unknown. The article incorrectly indicated that Chemican Weapons was not used against allied forces in Iraq (ignoring the May 22, 2004 IED attack), ignores the July 2, 2004 discovery of Sarin Gas warheads and launchers by Polish Allies, and even contradicts the self-same article by indicating that chemical weapons were not found in Iraq.

This may or may not have a valid place in this article, but in its current location it's obviously pro-Bush propoganda. It either needs to be moved to a more relevant place or eliminated. The various charges it makes of "Sarin Gas warheads" and whatnot also need to be cited.

The entire section "Purported Iraqi intelligence plots" is nothing but a laundry list of far-right speculation and wild-eyed accusations. This article is already of an excessive size. I have to seriously question why every random claim against Iraq needs to be listed, and I would suggest removing this entire section. To my knowledge, nothing has ever come of the various claims leveled in this section, so it's really nothing more than putting random private-sector, non-official accusations with no real recognition of validity into an encyclopedia.

When it comes down to it, is it really necessary to include every tiny little claim anybody anywhere made about Iraq? I would like to propose that this article be whittled down to include two primary sections (with necessary subsections): one detailing official arguments presented by governments and a smaller section that can be used to briefly mention some of the more prominent popular arguments used by people in the media/blogs/etc. The way it is now, there's too much unsupportable hearsay and speculation mixed in with the official lines and it's too difficult to tell when we're talking about the CIA/Bush Regime or some wild-eyed frat boy posting on DKOS/Freep. --208.41.98.142 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Working on it. Reorganized to move some of the, shall we say, "less official" items to the bottom. Warren Dew 06:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The two points of view"

That's currently the title of one of the sections. There are only two possible points of view on this subject? I don't think so.
It might be accurate to say that there are two main points of view, although that's probably oversimplifying also. For now, that's what I'm changing it to. --Mr. Billion 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unwarranted gloss

The paragraph on House Joint Resolution 114 glossed the bit of the rationale dealing with support of terrorists with the parenthical addition "(PALF)" and these two references: "Saddam Pays 35K for Palestinian Bombers", Fox News, 2002-03-26.  "Saddam dispenses blood money to win Palestinian hearts", The Age, 2002-03-26. 

However, no version of the resolution (see all of them; surprisingly it was not linked before) is specific about which terrorists were supported/harbored and how: what it says is "Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;" and "Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups. . .".

Editors should not be inserting their own interpretations of what Congress meant as if they were unquestioned fact; this gloss not warranted unless there's some source in a position to know (e.g. the author or authors of the bill) which says "Those bits about international terrorist groups, refer to the payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, etc."—and of course that source needs to be cited. —Charles P._(Mirv) 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

Support of/defence of Israel/1996 "clean break" plan is not mentioned? Strange considering the volume of people, up to and including Bush, claiming that it had something to do with the war. Will edit in some of the details assuming no objections. D Mac Con Uladh 09:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprofessional article

"Promoters of the war often referenced the religion of Islam, which proponents claimed was likely to produced (sic) a future alliance between Iraq and rogue terrorist elements"

This is deeply unprofessional writing.

Promoters of the war? War promoters? That immediately demonizes the subjects.

"often referenced the religion of Islam"? How often? 3 times a week?

That's a ridiculous way to start a sentence, never mind an article. It also paints the subjects as "the accused".

Article brings Wikipedia into disrepute; an example of the kind of article that makes Wikipedia uncitable.

80.229.242.179 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should ALWAYS be uncitable, it is not a source of any original information by design. That is the whole point of CITING YOUR SOURCES, so that when people read things on wikipedia they can refer to the original source of the information and CITE THAT SOURCE. I still dont understand why people insist on citing Wikipedia as a source (other than for original photographs) 64.230.5.190 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imminent threat

That's what this war was sold on. Why doesn't it appear? Blah42 02:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A good point, but members of the administration deny using this exact phrase. Indeed, they said "deep and gathering threat," "sobering threat," etc., while leaving "imminent threat" to their allied news commentators. Debating the precise language used is a frustrating exercise, but certainly Saddam Hussein's Iraq was portrayed as a threat to the United States, which was absurd. Iraq was no more a threat than Poland. In truth, George W. Bush's United States was a threat to Iraq, as confirmed by subsequent events. Paul 01:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This, of course, is an oversimplification. Suggesting that a single element was the selling point of the decision to use military force simply does not hold water. Included were reasons of failing to meet the terms agreed on for the cease fire of the first conflict (which, naturally, means resumption of hostilities). For just one example.Ryder Spearmann (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MAD

Here's evidence the U.S. government knew Iraq didn't have WMD's; if it did, the U.S. would never have invaded for the same reason they never invaded the Soviet Union: mutual assured destruction. Any thoughts? VolatileChemical 02:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Supposition == Evidence now? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely correct, but others will claim it is oversimplified -- "If Saddam Hussein actually possessed nukes, how many would he have possessed?" -- that sort of thing. This subject matter contains so many intensely debated fairy tales that it practically amounts to a religious argument. Paul 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...is the fact that the U.S. went to war with Iraq, when they didn't go to war with the Soviet Union due to (perhaps well founded) fears of mutual assured destruction, evidence that the "U.S. government knew" (whatever that means) that Iraq didn't have WMDs? Or is it simply evidence that at least a sizeable number of those who were involved in the decision making process did not consider the dangers to the U.S. grave enough to completely override what were thought, at the time, to be the potential benefits of going to war. There are a lot of holes in your "evidence":
  • When Iraq did have WMDs, it used them but not against the U.S. It would be completely inaccurate to imagine that a premise agreed upon by both side in the pre-war debate was "if Saddam has WMDs, he plans to use them directly against the U.S.". Sure, there was some of that (on both sides, but mostly Democrats, fanciful post-war recollections by Democrats of Bush's pre-war rationale notwithstanding), and it was sensationalized as usual in the media. However, far more core to the debate was "there is reason to believe that Saddam has WMDs, and if so, is a credible threat against innocent people including our allies in the region, and further that it would be wrong to not do something about it when we have the power to do so" versus "Iraq is not the threat it is made out to be" or "addressing threats to our allies is not worth the cost to us" or "we should not be the world's police force" or "we would make things worse".
  • No one claimed that Iraq had the level of WMDs as the Soviet Union or even enough for mutual ensured destruction. In particular, no one claimed that Iraq had a stockpile of nukes or any nukes at all for that matter. The comparison to the cold war is completely broken.
  • You assume that your reasoning, from "Iraq has WMDs" to "there is a non-negligible possibility that agression against Iraq will increase the chances of a large scale use of WMDs against the U.S." to "we shouldn't go to war", is universal, when in fact each of these steps makes some pretty big jumps.
CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 09:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"WMDs" does not equal to "nuclear weapons capable of attacking/destroying the United States." They could not be anymore different. North Korea's "nuclear weapon" couldn't even fly pass the Chinese border, nevermind Iraqi "WMDs," the majority of which were still developing, according to even the most page-turning of Bush fiction. That said, its also common sense that few countries will attack another country unless seriously threatened or when large gains are at hand, however much the Bush Administration advocates its "liberation of the Iraqi people."
No, the U.S. Government is not certain Iraq did not have WMDs. If they were that certain, they wouldn't have made the risky and pretty ridiculous claim at all. It is more likely that some of the more innocuous seriously believed so and that some of these WMDs could even strike the USA, and others believed serious profits could be made for Iraq and simply wanted to believe so. There's of course also a fraction of them who just wanted to do something notorious for fun. And of course, there's just so many innocent Iraqis to kill, how could the President resist that? Aran|heru|nar 14:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Policy towards Iraq" Contradiction

'Furthermore, in November 1998, at the urging of President Bill Clinton, the U.S. House of Representatives and the US Senate passed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998," [12] which "declare[d] that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government." President Clinton signed this bill into law.'

The next section starts off with: "After the September 11, 2001 attacks the Bush administration policy toward Iraq became that of regime change."

My question is, how can the policy suddenly "become that of regime change" when a law had already been passed 3 years prior stating that "it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government"

To me that sounds more like a jab at Bush than a fair statement. 66.83.182.123 15:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Reasons for entering Iraq

Is there an article on the British Government's justification (I haven't read this entire article but I gather that this is about the U.S.). Henners91 07:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems and errors on Purported Links - Al-Qaeda

The section entitled "Purported Links - Al-Qaeda" contains the following statement:

"In 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks. This conclusion was consistent with the conclusions of all agencies of the U.S. intelligence community, according to documents released in 2005."

However, the 9/11 Commission Report actually stated: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qa'eda co-operated on attacks upon the United States." The wording of the section implies that the Report found no relationship at all, which is not true. Furthermore, the 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee Report states that the CIA currently believes that their prewar assessment remains valid, contrary to the section's claim that "This conclusion was consistent with the conclusions of all agencies of the U.S. intelligence community."

The entire section also presents very little of the credible evidence supporting the link, and conversely devotes most of its content to the alleged disprovals of the link.

I am not sure who wrote the above post, as it is unsigned. But I agree that the purported links section with Al Qaeda needed work. I have edited it down significantly, as most of it belongs in the main article: Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I plan to move some of that information there shortly. Generally speaking, I think the section as it was written was overly critical of the intelligence community writ large, which did an admirable job in their efforts to respond to the dictates of policymakers. I have tried to address that issue in the rewrite by including information about the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, but welcome further comments. I have also removed most of the information about links between Hussein and other terrorist organizations (e.g., Hamas). Most of it was unsourced, and it is not really central to this article, as it was not a principal rationale for the war. --Mackabean 04:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanctions

Hi everyone. I am trying to do some cleanup on this article, which I think could be shortened and streamlined without losing the essential content. In particular, I think there is a lot of information in here that doesn't really have to do with the rationale for the war. For example, it doesn't seem to me that the presence or absence of sanctions had anything to do with going to war, except in the most peripheral way. I would like to propose cutting this section and maybe including a sentence about sanctions in the "other justifications" section. I would also like to propose cutting down the background section, which repeats a lot of information elsewhere. Please let me know your thoughts on this edit. Thanks!--Mackabean 00:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed: paper recommends invasion?

I added a "disputed" tag in the Background section. The article says that a paper by the Project For a New American Century recommends an invasion of Iraq, but I couldn't find this in the paper. CalebNoble 21:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale

The article says "Despite these efforts to sway public opinion, the invasion of Iraq was seen by some including Kofi Annan,[131] United Nations Secretary-General, Lord Goldsmith, British Attorney General,[132] and Human Rights Watch[133] as a violation of international law,[134] breaking the UN Charter (see Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq), especially since the U.S. failed to secure U.N. support for an invasion of Iraq."

  • Lord Goldsmith never said what is claimed. He is accurately cited stating that 1441 alone might not be adequate alone. To retain this statement, a reliable source need be found that states that he claimed that 660/678 which was later used (perhaps from his advice) "as a violation of international law". While he did say that 1441 alone was inadequate, I have seen no reliable source for the invasion itself. Raggz (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Many intelligence experts

In contrast with this rationale, many intelligence experts say the invasion itself increased the threat of terrorism. This was deleted as OR. It may of course be reverted if someone disagrees, but please offer a reliable source that "many intelligence experts" agree that "the invasion itself increased the threat of terrorism". Raggz (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oil and foreign relations

The following text needs deletion because it does not explain the Rationale for the Iraq Invasion. Raggz (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-Iraq invasion opinion polls conducted in Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, and Turkey showed that the majority in each country tended to "doubt the sincerity of the war on terrorism," which they characterized instead as "an effort to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world."[124] Although there has been disagreement about where the alleged will to control and dominate originates, skeptics of the War on Terror have pointed early[125] and often[126] to the Project for a New American Century, a neoconservative think tank established in 1997 by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The organization made plain its position on oil, territory, and the use of force in series of publications, including:

a 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton: "It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. [...] The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing."[127] a September 2000 report on foreign policy: "American forces, along with British and French units...represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."[128] a May, 2001 call to "Liberate Iraq": "Twice since 1980, Saddam has tried to dominate the Middle East by waging wars against neighbors that could have given him control of the region's oil wealth and the identity of the Arab world.[129] a 2004 apologia: "His [Saddam Hussein's] clear and unwavering ambition, an ambition nurtured and acted upon across three decades, was to dominate the Middle East, both economically and militarily, by attempting to acquire the lion's share of the region's oil and by intimidating or destroying anyone who stood in his way. This, too, was a sufficient reason to remove him from power."[130] Of 18 signatories to the 1998 PNAC letter, 11 would later occupy positions in President Bush's administration: Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John R. Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert B. Zoellick.[131] Administration officials Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, and Lewis Libby were signatories to the 1997 PNAC "Statement of Principles."[132]'

[edit] Conspiracy Theory

"A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a cabal of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes."

The material within the Conspiracy Theory Section perfectly meets the definition of a conspiracy theory, and yet this appropriate title was deleted. There is no problem discussing this conspiracy theory, because enough people are interested to deserve mention. Now that "conspiracy theory" has been challenged, restoration will require a reliable source.

The question here is if this section includes any reliable source that suggests that there is any direct evidence to support this theory? Now is the time to offer a reliable source that this section in NOT a "chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a cabal of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes." There are presently reliable sources to suggest that people are suspicious, and the article should state this. There are no reliable sources that confirm any such conspiracy, and the article should also say this.

I'm adding a reliable source that this section is about a conspiracy theory. Raggz (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The following text was just added: "Much evidence supports the theory that the U.S. invades Iraq for oil. In April 2001, six months before September 11th, Bush stated a plan to use "military intervention" in Iraq, because "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East." The claim does not match the citation. There is a major difference between "the theory that the U.S. invades Iraq for oil" and the citation about "destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets". The citation is fine, but the text needs to follow the citation. It does not suggest that the Iraq invasion was "for oil", and in fact no oil was taken. I will be editing the text to reflect the citation accurately. Any ideas on this? Raggz (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Strategic importance of oil
In the United States, for example, where ExxonMobil holds and is expected shortly to break the record for highest quarterly profit ever reported,[104] What does this have to do with the topic? I expect to delete it unless there is some relevancy. Raggz (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The best supported analysis isn't that a secret or not-so-secret "cabal" invaded Iraq to take the oil for their own narrow interests, but that control of Iraq's petroleum reserves gives the United States critical leverage over other industrial powers. That is the considered position of millions of people based on observable evidence. Nor is it only a single, fringe sector that disseminate this view. Referencing a straw man rebuttal from Tony Blair doesn't give your editorialising any legitimacy. Neutrality can be maintained through attribution. smb (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You need some reliable source that supports your allegation that the US has any control of oil in Iraq. Iraq controls the oil in Iraq, this is a fact. What evidence is there that the US controls oil, or that it got a single barrel?
"That is the considered position of millions of people based on observable evidence."
  • If a million people believe in a conspiracy theory does it cease to be a conspiracy theory? Does WP define a conspiracy as limited to a "fringe" or that it is necessarily incorrect?
  • Do millions believe that "that a secret or not-so-secret "cabal" invaded Iraq to take the oil for their own narrow interests"? Does our article strongly suggest that this is the case? This entire section IS about a conspiracy theory. It perfectly meets the definition for this phrase. The WP weasle words policy requires us to use conspiracy theory rather than weasle words. Raggz (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"I believe that Tony Blair was properly quoted, do you dispute that he believes the theory is a conspiracy theory? Are you challenging that (1) he said this? Are you (2) challenging that Tony Blair's opinion is a "straw man". Are you challenging (3) that Tony Blair's opinions are irrelevant? Please clarify. Raggz (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be editing conspiracy theory back in, with Tony Blair's assesment of the section titled OIL. Any objections? Raggz (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have ANY reliable sources that suggest that the US, the UK, or any US or UK oil company actually in any way benefited from the Iraq invasion? If not, the OR material goes. Citations that people allege these are fines, so long as we include a strong qualifier that they are speculative opinion only. Raggz (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? The Iraqi constitution gives preferential treatment to western oil companies. Previous oil contracts were cancelled and given to western companies (who were previously excluded from Iraq). Western oil companies are getting paid (by Iraq) twice the industry average (with 30 year contracts) for controling it's oil (with no investment in Iraq required until the violence ends). "Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty. It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it anyway, with minimal discussion within the Iraqi parliament is really just pouring more oil on the fire." Wayne (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Just offer reliable sources that this actually is the case, not mere allegations. The article is in serious lack of actual facts. It would be improved if you contribute a few. Please do NOT heap more unsupported allegations on this article, it is already tottering under the weight of these. Raggz (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed up a paragraph a bit. This is the new paragraph:

In April 2001, six months before September 11th, Bush stated a plan to use "military intervention" in Iraq, because "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East." [105] This was much before September 11th (September 11th was used as a rational to invade Iraq. [106]) U.S. oil industry consultant Falah Aljibury alleges that soon after U.S. President Bush took office in 2001 he took part in secret meetings in Washington, the Middle East, and California involving an overthrow of the Iraq regime. Falah Aljibury also told BBC's Newsnight that he actually "interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration." [107]

I have added the bold part because it proves that Bush wanted to invade Iraq much before 9/11. The first part tells us that Bush disapproved of Iraq's oil policy, and the second one proved that a coup was planned. Any objections? --Luke (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any proof of your claim, but an allegation for this. You have a reliable source for this allegation.
The US Government has a contingency plan for everything. The existence of any plan does not prove an intent to use that plan. There is a plan to invade Canada, but it is just a required exercise without meaning. You have a reliable source for contigency planning, something that you may state. You do not have a source proving an intent to invade. You don't need a source to state that after 9-11 there was serious contigency planning to invade Iraq.
Revert Falah Aljibury if you want, you have a reliable source. I suggest that you not revert because he is irrelevant to the Article. Contingency planning was going on and I do not believe that you need not have a source to suggest that contigency planning was going on. Part of that would have been about who might succeed Saddam. Aljibury's opinions apparently went into a contingency planning file, no doubt a serious plan. Raggz (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theory - Oil and the Iraq invasion

I have a concern with the following passage:

Tony Blair, the UK Prime Minister stated that the criticism by those who believe that the Iraq invasion was primarily about oil to be a "conspiracy theory". The Bush Administration foreign policy critic Dr. Robert Jervis anticipated that incorrect popular theories would evolve about the invasion of Iraq. He said: "Indeed, it is quite likely that failure [in Iraq] will lead the most common explanation to be that the war was fought for oil and Israel. This would be unfortunate."[99]

99: Robert Jervis. 2005. American Foreign Policy in a New Era. Introduction, page 4.

The passage says "incorrect popular theories." By no means is it incorrect to say that oil control was a motive for invasion. In fact, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz openly said that oil was a motive. [1] I will revise the sentence.

Also, their is no reference for the first sentence in the passage. And just because Mr.Blair stated that it is a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean anything; of course he'll say it's a conspiracy theory. I think that including his remarks doesn't prove anything.--Luke (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

However, a Bush Administration foreign policy critic Dr. Robert Jervis stated: "Indeed, it is quite likely that failure [in Iraq] will lead the most common explanation to be that the war was fought for oil and Israel. This would be unfortunate." [1]
You say: "By no means is it incorrect to say that oil control was a motive for invasion." We don't debate the reliable sources, Robert Jervis is perhaps THE leading American academic critic of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. He said this. He was referring to the inevitable conspiracy theory. He does not believe that the Iraq war was for oil, in part becausde he knew that the US could not and did not get any oil from the invasion, not one barrel.
If you revert this text again, you need to cite some policy because there is a policy about deleting well-cited statement like this. You can sometimes still do it, IF some other policy is being implemented. You need to cite the other policy.
The NPOV policy was violated when you deleted Tony Blair's conspiracy theory quote. Please read it, NPOV. Be cautious when deleting things because you disagree with them, this isn't an option, even if you see others doing it. It is a policy violation unless there is some other policy that you are implementing. Raggz (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't wikilawyer. No such policy was violated. Please provide a reference that Luke requested. —Viriditas | Talk 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, I deleted anticipated that incorrect popular theories would evolve about the invasion of Iraq because you say that oil as a motive for invasion is not true. But it is. The ARCHITECT of the war said that the US invaded for oil motives. Just because Mr. Jervis said oil was not a factor, doesn't mean it wasn't. --Luke (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating that the reason that the US Congress passed the Iraq Resolution was oil? Do you have a reliable source stating that the reason that the UN Security Council passed the 660/678 or 1441 because of oil? I do not know who you think the architect was, but only the UNSC and the Congress had the authority to invade Iraq. Please share your reliable sources for the above - or that the "architect" actually did have this authority. Raggz (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Paul Wolfowitz was an important advisor and his opinion belongs within this article. His opinion is only an opinion, is it not? Raggz (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Raggz, I was only expressing my own, personal views in this discussion page. I did not include in the article that oil was, for certain, a motive. But you wrote that oil was definitely not a factor--which is also not for certain--so I deleted that part. And if you look at my references in the article, you'll see that Mr.Wolfowitz was the leading architect of the war. Sure, it's his opinion, but my personal judgment is that it's truth. But we'll let the readers decide for themselves. Also, are you a neoconservative? (Just curious) --Luke (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The 1991 Gulf War

The 1991 Gulf War never fully ended and relations between the United States, the United Nations, and Iraq remained strained. This was deleted and it will be restored with a reliable source, as WP requires. Now is the time to debate this claim. The United States relied upon 1991 Security Council Resolutions for the invasion. This is easy to document. The UN asked the US to assist with many military missons after major combat operations ended, particularly enforcing the "no-fly zone". American military aircraft never ceased combat operations over Iraq, and the UN Secretary General requested that combat operations be continued under the 1991 resolutions.

Would a more complete explanation (as above) be a better approach than the single sentence? Raggz (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations categorically did not request the United States enforce the 'no-fly' zones. [2] And the text that was originally deleted (by you) read: "Following the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War, relations between the United States, the United Nations, and Iraq remained strained and complicated." This is better than saying the war "never ended", and that relations were only strained, but not complicated. The original version should remain until we can agree on matters, though please be patient as I'm busy at this time. smb (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You offer an interesting reference. It will require a new and complex section to explore the question that it raises. Resolution 678 authorized military force, this is not debated - and it did not detail the strategic and tactical approach to implement the UNSC resolutions. I was unaware of this debate, and now accept it as a legitimate pov. While it seems clear to me that 678 was a request for the US to enforce the "no-fly zones" or any other necessary military strategy, and that Kofi Annan is on the record agreeing, it might be best to keep the article less complex by changing this language. I prefer this option, does anyone disagree? Raggz (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
smb reverted the following text "Following the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War, relations between the United States, the United Nations, and Iraq remained strained and complicated." This text was deleted initially because it is inaccurate and lacked a reliable source. Please do not revert again without a reliable source that the 1991 war had an end, preferably with the date that it ended. Presently this remains OR and is ineligible for revert unless supported. The ideal citation would be from the UN, because the UN declared the 1991 war with 660 and 678.
I would suggest the Kofi Annan quote, but that was his personal opinion since the UN Charter precludes the Secretary General from a formal determination (Art. 39). Then there is his support for US combat missions to protect the UN "no-fly zones" using 660/678 for a decade after major combat operations were completed. If the war had ended, he would not have asked the US to fly these missions if 660/678 had expired. No, Kofi Annan would not be a good source unless we want a section on Kofi Annan and the Iraq war. His position is too complex and variable for a sentence or two.
Does anyone have a reliable source for claiming that the 1991 war ended, particularly one with the date that it ended? Raggz (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
February 28, 1991. How many sources do you want? —Viriditas | Talk 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The operational period (DESERT STORM) commenced at 0400C hours, February 24, 1991, when Allied-Coalition forces began the ground phase of the campaign and may be said to have concluded with the initiation of the temporary cease-fire at 0800C hours on February 28, 1991. However, the Iraqis finally accepted the cease-fire terms at Safwan Airfield on March 3, and there was significant fighting subsequent to the temporary cease-fire, particularly in the XCIII Airborne Corps zone...Following the cease-fire, there was a period of re-positioning and re-deployment. US forces began to leave the theater as early as March 8, 1991.[3]
—Viriditas | Talk 01:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This citation is about Operation Desert Storm. The issue really is about UNSC Resolutions 660/678. They authorized the invasion of Iraq by UN members, and were used for this by the US in 1991 and 2003, and (I believe) by Turkey in 2007. The debate is if they had an expiration date? If they did, we need a relaible source.
The UN authorized Chapter VII force, authority that Kofi Annan invoked for the no-fly zones well after Desert Storm ended. We know that 660/678 were in force at least until then, so when did they expire? That is the reliable source that we need. Raggz (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Citation

The problems in this article are many, and I agree with those that claim that it is rather unprofessional. It is, at least, better than the Iraq War page, which need more work than this one.

Erroneous use of citations is inexcusable. Statements that have citations should at a minimum, agree with the citation.

The offending entry I refer to is: "Critics claimed the intent was instead to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it."

Reading the citation, it does not support this statement in several important ways.

1 - The article was written by a single man, so Critics is incorrect. Critic would be correct. 2 - The author of the citation does not identify himself as a critic, and in fact offers, within the cited work, these words: "Not only is the unvarnished truth less scandalous than commonly assumed, it is far more defensible than the party line nervously being adhered to by the White House."

The author then goes on to make a case that the Official US declarations are of a kind fully and historically justified, and then to also have unstated intentions, all for diplomatically defensible reasons, and even goes so far as to credit Bush with being especially truthful of the deeper intentions: "Bush has been far more public about his deep strategy in the War on Terror that were any of his Cold War predecessors."

Moreover, the author has not one critical thing to say about the war, nor the intentions behind it. Finally, the title of the article is "The Whole Argument for Operation Iraqi Freedom". Note the word "for".

So the word Critic, is not justified in this case.

3 - The wiki says "the intent was instead", yet in reading the cited work, the author suggests *additional*, "deeper" reasons are properly not officially communicated, therefore the use of the work "instead" is wholly inappropriate.

4 - The Wikipedia article quotes the cited work, yet quotation marks are not used.

Observation: For four major flaws to surface in a simple one sentence passage, it leaves one weary of the task of repairing this article such that is begins to approach the standards that should be maintained throughout the wikipedia. Please dear contributors, resist the temptation to do sloppy work, especially on important and current events. Without integrity, the Wiki is a worthless rag.

Without removing the entry, I am fixing it to adhere to the citation. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. We have consensus. Raggz (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus. User:Ryder Spearmann is a single-purpose account created on January 5th. —Viriditas | Talk 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually by my understanding of Consensus we do have consensus. Viriditas has yet to participate in consensus building within this topic, and unless he does, we do have tacit consensus. Does anyone have a different opinion? Raggz (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreement by one user with a new, single-purpose user account is not a consensus. —Viriditas | Talk 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are not really here to participate, if you will not engage in the Consensus process, we can and will reach Consensus without you. You are gain invited to engage in the Consensus process. Raggz (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
See WP:MEAT. —Viriditas | Talk 10:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Raggz, minus efforts to build consensus, those that are engaged in doing so will have to carry the day. As a final plea, Viriditas, if you have specific issues against the 4 points above, and the resolution, your specific objections to them, or consensus with them, is requested. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus & Participation

(1) Every editor has a right to object. (2) When we object, we have an obligation to communicate and to work toward consensus. (3) Although we have an obligation to communicate and to work toward consensus, there is no obligation to agree to anything. When an editor only takes the first step above (objection) but will not communicate nor work toward consensus, it is my opinion that they violate Consensus. In other words: Consensus does not require agreement but it does require a good-faith effort to communicate and to attempt consennsus. Do I misunderstand Consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

May an editor use the rhetorical device of stating "I object" without any further communication and without a sincere intent to attempt consensus? What if this rhetorical device is employed to deny Consensus? Raggz (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ritter

Early section on Ritter's claims has been corrected, and made more concise. (for example, the weapons inspections were never to disarm Hussein's government, as was stated, but rather to disarm him of WMD's only, not conventional arms or weapons systems.) Ryder Spearmann (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. good edit. Keep going... Raggz (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights and Darfur.

The following paragraph removed from Human Rights section.

"However, the US has done little military action to ease the Darfur conflict, which also involves human rights abuses.[82] The Darfur conflict has taken as many as 400,000 lives and has displaced over 2 million people. [83] In fact, the US has called the human rights abuses in Darfur "genocide," but has done relatively little to stop the genocide. [84] Many have questioned why the US used military action to promote human rights in Iraq while not in Darfur. [85]"

Criticism or discussion of US Darfur policy has no place in an Iraq War article. The Wikipedia is NOT a place to engage on debate or discussion. This was written in the style of an Editorial, not an Encyclopedia, and for that reason is removed.

Ryder Spearmann (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. good edit. Raggz (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. If the reference shows that the criticism was made in direct context of the rationale (which I assume that it was), then it will be added back into the article. Please review WP:NPOV. —Viriditas | Talk 00:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with the removal of the paragraph. The paragraph simply explains a criticism voiced by many. It must be added back. --Luke (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read An Inconvenient Truth. Does this excellent article "simply explain a criticism voiced by many"? No, it properly focused on the SUBJECT with a small discussion of objections. What of socialism? Does it explain all criticisms? Should it try to explain every objection to socialism ever written? Raggz (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone here believe that the US is legally or morally obligated to invade every nation on earth where the US believes that a human rights abuse is occuring? Luke0101 is this what you are calling for? The US military in every nation WITHOUT UN authorization? Raggz (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent Luke's position. —Viriditas | Talk 10:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2 points: 1 - Viriditas, asking Luke to verify his position is not a misrepresentation at all, and 2 - You should not be answering for Luke. It may be that Luke fully agrees, that the US, for consistancy's sake, must forcefully intervene in all cases of great humanitarian crisis. Let's not pretend we can respond for other editors, who can easily do so for themselves. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I remind editors that the wikipedia is specifically NOT a location for original research, original thought, nor to be persuasive. And encyclopedia presents fact. It does not then turn around and dispute its own content. Wikipedia is also not charged with presenting evidence and a "case" as in a courtroom. The kind editors who stand in disagreement to the edit seem to forget what an encyclopedia is. Also wrt NPOV, NPOV does NOT mean that all sides of a debate are presented, thus, supposedly, arriving at an averaged neutrality by the inclusion of radical POVS. NPOV is achieved, primarily, by having each passage in the stance of NPOV. Statistical information on Darfur, no matter how factual, belongs in a section on Darfur. To properly cast doubt on Human rights efforts of the US in this case, it is appropriate only to point out that the US has not always handled human rights crises in the same way (which is true).
Lastly, the article itself says that Human Rights abuses are but ONE of the reasons cited to engage in military conflict, and as also pointed out in article, other reasons, especially WMD's are the primary reasons. The critical comparison is ONLY helpful if in addition to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur also was said to have WMD's, aided international terrorism, etc. Minus the full bredth of charges being brought on Darful, which no editor here has yet suggested, it is unreasonable to believe that the same response would be mounted. In other words, if the Darfur situation was the materially the same in all ways to the Iraq situation, then the comparison would become valid. Minus that, the comparison is invalid.
Again, it is inappropriate for editors to introduce cases of persuasive reason WITHIN an article. The wiki is not a debating society. Facts, facts, always facts. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No such thing has occurred. I find it very, very strange that you are: 1) a new single-user acccount; 2) writing in the same style as Raggz; 3) making the exact same arguments about primary vs. secondary reasons that Raggz made in an entirely different article. Are these three things a coincidence? —Viriditas | Talk 09:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
So I take it, that it bothers you that as many as two other persons might not agree with you. What makes it hard to believe, that more than one person would have a different take on an edit, be able to articulate it clearly, for the same reason? I offer for your consideration, that when multiple people see the same thing in the same way, that perhaps there is something to their position, as opposed to a secretive plot to subvert. I also welcome your checking with an administrator.Ryder Spearmann (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It's very interesting that you speculate about the emotions of other users - just like Raggz! You even capitalize the same words. Wow, there are so many similarities between the two of you. It must be coincidence, right? —Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is a most pleasant coincidence. I have but one account, but if you are unable to "assume good faith", why not ask an administrator to check. I am very busy, I could not be posting in two articles at the same time. They will know this, just ask them. We just have similar academic training, which means we operate similarly. If you have dangerous wires dangling in your home, any electrician will notice these immediately. This article has similar and analagous flaws. Not a coincidence. Raggz (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What I found very strange was that Mr. Spearman made the same argument you did - but in a different article. What are the odds of that happening? —Viriditas | Talk 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the odds are increasingly high, when the positions are truly based on reason, and adherence to principle. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have three computers in front of me, as well as one PDA. It would be very easy for me to post from four accounts at once. Which one is more likely? —Viriditas | Talk 09:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, conspiracy theories are always hard to debunk, so, please do not take offense if I do not make the effort. Perhaps you can state in what form do you wish proof? Also, be advised, that I wish you to follow the Wiki guideline that I cited in my introduction, and I have every right and reason to insist upon. I am am editor, not the subject of discussion or debate, and if you continue on this course, adrift from Wiki matters, I shall likely take offense. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:SOCK is not a "conspiracy theory" - it's official policy. Please also read the section titled, "Meatpuppets": ...the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. —Viriditas | Talk 10:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
SOCK and conspiracy theory are not exclusive of one another, in fact, they are supportive. In that light, and for the record, please state plainly whether or not you are accusing Raggz and myself as conspiring as editors. Since this is a question of policy adherence, and raised by you, and seeing that you have declined to answer what proof you require to satisfy you that there is no conspiracy between us, I implore you to answer this directily, or to fall silent on the matter. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you have now acknowledged the sock and meat puppet policy directly, I am confident you will abide by it. —Viriditas | Talk 06:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
What argument? How cool is that? I really would like the diff, if you wouldn't mind! Raggz (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you would. However, I have previously requested diffs from you on Talk:Human rights and the United States that I have still not received. Let me know when you get to it. —Viriditas | Talk 09:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I have not read what you sent me about diffs before.
I have copied one of Ryder's arguments, I liked one of them and have since used it. I imagine that this is why you have grown suspicious? Hey Ryder - hope you don't mind. Raggz (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not mind at all, and am flattered. As you can see, I have implored Viriditas to stop beating about the bush, and state plainly if he is making an accusation that we are the same person. At this point, as he has never provided substantiation or examples for any of his allegations (same style, same capitalized words, same arguments), I have to consider the possibility that he does not really believe the accusations, and is making them strictly for the purposes of constructing a SOCK case from the ether as a means to silence editors through blocking. Of course, such an act would be highly aggressive, very unethical, and serve as a chilling agent for editing in controversial articles, but it is within the realm of possibility. As we have both invited him to contact an administrator, there is not much more we can do it seems to me. I will be requesting that he make and immediate checkuser request in the event that he does make the accusation that I am your sock. Beyond urging him to make the charge and doing the checkuser, does your experience suggest what else to do? Obviously he has not been welcoming, and his undetailed accusations have plainly disrupted the edit. Feel free to take this to my talk page if you think that is proper, I defer to your experience on this. 72.245.21.50 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Another amazing coincidence. —Viriditas | Talk 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas, are you going to discuss Darfur - or not? Raggz (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I already did above. But I'll be happy to recap. If the reference is reliable and refers to Darfur in direct relation to the Iraq War and related criticism, it's relevant. If it doesn't meet those requirements, it doesn't belong. —Viriditas | Talk 10:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree with this, if you agree to "If the reference is reliable and refers to Darfur in direct relation to the RATIONALE for the Iraq War and related criticism, it's relevant." Without that one word, we might lose focus and wander all over. Raggz (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a disagreement, but one could interpret the rationale and its exposition in various ways. —Viriditas | Talk 10:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
i don't see it as unrelated, if human rights were use as reasons for war, it should be weighted with other known fact. you can say A380 is the biggest plane in the world, if you ignore the existant of An225. as a verified article, it should be able to stand in fact vs fact, as long as the human right abuse in iraq is quoted, and equal comparison should be made. Akinkhoo (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms....

It seems very odd to have a wiki article that is about rationale for war, to then also give space to voices that opposed the war. Stranger still, is the addition of pointers to no less than four other wiki articles that cover the exact same topic:

"See also: Opposition to the Iraq War, Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Protests against the Iraq war, and Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq"

What is next, the Economic Costs of War?

Unless someone can cite wiki guidelines that a section on Atheism should be included on the the Muslem religion page, or that a section on socilism should appear on the capitalism page, of that any topics should contain a section that stands in opposition to the base article, I will be removing this section, and leaving it to the four existing, redundant articles cited above. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We have consensus on all points. Any further discussion? Raggz (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well said. I'm not opposed to removing it. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, Financial cost of the 2003 Iraq Conflict. MilesAgain (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Raggz is going around to every article he edits and claiming a false consensus. The account User:Ryder Spearmann, was created at 23:04, 5 January 2008 [4] and appears to be a single-purpose account. —Viriditas | Talk 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

From the Wiki on single purpose accounts: "Often a brand new user appears to have created an account for the purpose of editing on one specific debate, article or issue only. These may represent a new user commencing on topics that interest them, but can also often signify a user with a specific agenda to 'push'. So such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny."
For purposes of transparency, I offer this brief introduction of myself. My account is new, and this is the second article I have contributed to using it. Rest assured that I am not new to writing or factual data collection and analysis. I understand and acknowledge your concerns. I offer that you will not likely find many editors of the Wikipedia that are more concerned with, nor more adherant to, wiki policy or guidelines than myself. I have edited other pages unregistered, but have ended that practice. This account is the only account I have, and the only account I will have. As a wikipedia user of many years, my respect for it is high. For articles that lead me to a diminished respect of the wikipedia, and of which I may be critical, not getting involved is distasteful to my person, so I am here to help. My current leaning is to verify the substance of citations as I suspect they are easily passed by as the work of checking citation is tedious and sometimes lengthy. To understand what I mean, the most recent .pdf I read was the 99 page document entitled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century." in order to check the claims of citation. In other words, it is hard work which I am not shy to do.
Beyond this single introduction (also copied to my talk page), which I offer to help clear doubts of my intent or status as they have just been raised, I expect that the Principles of Wikipedia etiquette, specifically "Argue facts, not personalities." be followed. I am not a topic of debate or discussion. I am an editor. As a somewhat new editor, I will appreciate everyone's kind assistance where I may misstep, and look forward to doing quality work with all editors. I appreciate being reminded of policy and guidelines, and shall not take offense when kindly directed to them. My style is always plain and direct. What you see is what you get.
Kind regards, Ryder Spearmann (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Then what is your relationship to Raggz? You both write the same and make the same arguments. Is this a coincidence or do you both work for the same company? —Viriditas | Talk 09:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
My relationship with him is identical to my relationship with you. Regards. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Then please put my mind at ease. On your user page you claim you have been editing Wikipedia for a long time under various accounts/IP's. Why don't you send me a private e-mail showing me your contributions? —Viriditas | Talk 10:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That is not what appears in my user pg. Contributions were made unregistered / anonoymously. There are no various accounts, nor are any specific IPs. So you are in fact uneasy about all this. I had said "bothered". A distinction without a difference. Raggz and I have both openly invited you to contact an admin. Have you done so yet? My advice is that you do so with all haste. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"Raggz and I"? —Viriditas | Talk 06:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, both Raggz and myself, each of us, have, in two separate places, welcomed you to contact an admin. They are on this talk page, do you need me to help you to find them? Ryder Spearmann (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to this Article. Consensus has now changed. You may revert any changes that you believe were made with a false consensus. Raggz (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You may not "revert any changes that you believe were made with a false consensus" as there is no policy or guideline allowing such action. —Viriditas | Talk 09:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Viriditas, if you leave this article and refuse to utilize TALK further, consensus will shift again. Take a week, but articulate clearly on this topic. If you do not, your points will not be heard here. Raggz (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have left nothing. Please stop making false accusations. —Viriditas | Talk 09:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If it is conventional to leave a week for TALK responses before shifting consensus, then I shall wait the week followin Viriditas' inputs before I make good on the proposition. Question: If Viriditas does respond, but does not offer consensus, nor reasonable objection, what procedure do editors recommend to move forward? Ryder Spearmann (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I find your comments strangely identical to those of User:Raggz. It's also strange how you showed up to agree with Raggz. —Viriditas | Talk 09:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. You may edit as you wish. Read Five pillars: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity."
I use my own standard rhetorical method to help us attain Consensus, I use a trial statement, "Tacit consensus appears to have been reached - is there any further debate on this?" How long to wait, this is contextual. A minute might be a bit short, a day or two adequate (sometimes). These are my opinions, and may not be correct. Don't wait a week, I will wait a week.
You soon will become embroiled in some administrative dispute with an offended editor. Visit the bottom of my discussion page if you would like to visit what is in your future. Viriditas has weighed in there about my pattern of edits. The good news is that the rules are intuitive, they support good editors and not bad editors. When you make the inevitable errors, just apologize and continue ON... Don't fear the ineveitable admin challenge, there is no way around it if you follow the policy I added above. Stay in touch. Raggz (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, visit discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viriditas for another interesting thought. Raggz (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not continue to threaten other users. Can you tell me if you and Ryder Spearmann are the same person? —Viriditas | Talk 09:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Off-topic

Accusations of faulty evidence and alleged shifting rationales became the focal point for critics of the war, who charge that the Bush Administration purposely fabricated evidence to justify an invasion it long planned to launch.[8] Supporters of the war claim that the threat from Iraq and Saddam Hussein was real and that this has later been established. The US lead the effort for "the redirection of former Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) scientists, technicians and engineers to civilian employment and discourage emigration of this community from Iraq."[9]"

Is this relevant to the rationale for the iraq war? How? Was any of the above articulated as a rationale for the Iraq war? As said above, should "section on Atheism should be included on the the Muslem religion page, or that a section on socialism should appear on the capitalism page"?

OK Viriditas, offer your argument. You never say anything, will you make an exception to this policy now? Eventually your reportable violations will earn you a chance to defend yourself for not engaging in TALK. Show us your stuff Viriditas, here is a good place. Now is a good time. Raggz (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. —Viriditas | Talk 09:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Criminal Court

I've removed a load of complete nonsense about the ICC prosecutor's report.

The International Criminal Court has never investigated the human rights situation in Iraq before the invasion. This edit was blatantly untrue.

Nor has the prosecutor "denied the many allegations made by hundreds of human rights organizations, and specifically denied those made by Human Rights Watch". This edit grossly distorts what the prosecutor said. (Read the source here.) In any case, the prosecutor's findings regarding human rights abuses committed during the invasion are not directly relevant to the "Rationale for the Iraq War", unless someone wants to explicitly make a connection. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the text was inaccurate because the HRW comment was about human rights issues before the invasion, and the ICC Prosecutor's report was about the invasion. Raggz (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree with your claim: "Nor has the prosecutor "denied the many allegations made by hundreds of human rights organizations, and specifically denied those made by Human Rights Watch". This edit grossly distorts what the prosecutor said. (Read the source here.) A more accurate statement might be "... cited a lack of evidence for the many allegations made by hundreds of human rights organizations, and specifically denied that there was evidence for those made by Human Rights Watch". Raggz (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with: "In any case, the prosecutor's findings regarding human rights abuses committed during the invasion are not directly relevant to the "Rationale for the Iraq War", unless someone wants to explicitly make a connection." There is no reason to discuss human rights issues after March 2003. Good point. Raggz (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No Raggz, you're still misrepresenting what the prosecutor said. Human Rights Watch said "During the course of Human Rights Watch's investigation, evidence did not emerge suggesting that coalition forces committed war crimes".[5] The prosecutor noted that this was consistent with his findings. He didn't dispute any claims made by any human rights organisations, and he most certainly did not "specifically deny those made by Human Rights Watch". Please take the time to read your sources carefully before making outlandish claims. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public support

Can someone point me to the rationale of public support in the article? I cannot seem to find it. —Viriditas | Talk 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lead

The ENTIRE rationale of the Iraq War, as described by Congress in the Iraq Resolution, is below. Shouldn't we include the actual Rationale? Raggz (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because the lead is supposed to a summary of the article, not the presentation of a single aspect or POV. —Viriditas | Talk 06:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Then should you not be moving it to the right location, rather than deleting it? I can agree that better formatting is possible, and movement to a better location might be in order, but certainly it has a place in the article as the single most authoratative document we can possibly cite. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

  • Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
  • Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf *region."[citation needed]
  • Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
  • Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
  • Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
  • Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
  • Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
  • The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
  • The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
  • Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
  • The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Using the actual published rationale seems rather like a pipe dream to me. Not sure anyone but me would allow it, but for what it is worth, you have my full consensus. Great addition. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Reliable Sources

Deleted without comment or discussion: "web|title=Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil|author=George Wright|publisher=The Guardian|date=June 4, 2004|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20070609120906/http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/wolfowitz2.html|archivedate=2007-06-09 }}</ref> Also, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[2] Additionally, in his memoir, Mr. Greenspan writes: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." [3] However, a Bush Administration foreign policy critic Dr. Robert Jervis stated: "Indeed, it is quite likely that failure [in Iraq] will lead the most common explanation to be that the war was fought for oil and Israel. This would be unfortunate." [4]"

Why was this deleted without discussion? Raggz (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, can you provide a diff showing the deletion? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 00:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No. I don't know how. It is in today's history, which is copied above. Raggz (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I gave you a link to the help page explaining how. Please read it or ask someone you trust to help you. —Viriditas | Talk 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I trust you. I lost it. Raggz (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Here you go: WP:DIFF. —Viriditas | Talk 06:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions and insertions of original research

Raggz, in a recent edit lacking any edit summary, you deleted sourced content without discussion.[6] You've been repeatedly asked not to do this. Please use the edit summary correctly and explain your edits on talk. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The diff shows no deletion of sourced materials, nor do I recall any. Could you have the wrong diff? Raggz (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the correct one is here: [7] Thank you for your help. Can you explain it so I understand your edit? You gave no edit summary. —Viriditas | Talk 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I still did not find any deletion of sourced material. If you read the cited source, it says the motivation was for oil security, not for oil. The contect is important. I hope to expand the Oil Security section to explain the distinction. Oh, I do like petroleum better than oil, good edit. Raggz (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think this article should be merged

It really would be more appropriate to trunctuate it and insert it as a section in the main article on said war. Jtrainor (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you expand on your idea? The way I understand it, the article is part of a series on the Iraq War, of which this topic was split out or added to the section, "2001–2003: Iraq disarmament crisis and pre-war intelligence". I can't see any reason to merge this article back into Iraq War. —Viriditas | Talk 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Legality of the Iraq war and Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq would be better canidates. The Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq for sure. Raggz (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
My question and point remain. Please address them directly. —Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is that we should merge with Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Jtrainor would need to explain those other thoughts. Raggz (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Why? Please address my previous point. —Viriditas | Talk 03:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If this article is inserted into the main article on the Iraq war, will some information be lost? Also, will this article remain as a separate page? If some information is gong to be lost, then I don't think that is should be inserted into the main article. Wikipedia should seek to offer more information, not less. --Luke (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"Why? Please address my previous point." Because the topics are so close. Raggz (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I addressed that in my previous point. This article is part of a series. Series articles are by definition, closely related but distinct. I still haven't seen any reason to merge this article. —Viriditas | Talk 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That's basically it. IMO since the subject matter of the articles in question are so close, they could all be merged into a new article entitled "Concerns over the 2003 invasion of Iraq" or some such. Jtrainor (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how merging this article changes anything of importance, nor do I see any valid reason for merging. What is wrong with the current article? —Viriditas | Talk 05:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
WP is an encyclopedia. A one page summary (when possible) is MUCH better than having two four page summaries of the same thing. No, we don't want to lose important information, but would we? No, the consensus process would ensure this. So if we presume that no important information would be lost, what other problems might there be? Raggz (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
But information will inevitable be lost. How can anyone fit all this extra information into the Iraq war article without the Iraq war article being too long? You can't. And their's nothing wrong with having a separate page. A separate page allows for more information, and Wikipedia needs to have as much information as possible. So, unless your against having a good amount of information on Wikipedia, don't try to merge or anything. Their's no need. You all ought to have better things to do besides removing information and randomly merging articles. --Luke (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What information would be lost? Only information that you agree should be lost. Why object to the loss of information that you agree could be lost? Raggz (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
But suppose one person wants some information to be lost, but another person doesn't, then what happens? Also, if we merge, what will happen to this page? Will it be gone forever? And won't the Iraq War article be too long? And then suppose we merge, then won't it be harder to add new information, because the Iraq War article will be too long? Isn't it easier just to, perhaps, add more to the Iraq War article, and keep this page, for more information to those who want it? --Luke (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Read this policy: Consensus. Nothing you object to will be lost. Your other questions have merit, but nothing will be lost unless we all agree. In the first draft, perhaps you will find things missing. You will then add them. Nothing that you resist being lost will be lost. If it is duplicated, one likely outcome is that only one copy would survive. So if nothing is lost, what is your opinion? Raggz (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That is an excellent proposal. Raggz (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that it would be best to merge Legality of the Iraq war and Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq into this article. --Luke (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to do this merge if you wish, unless someone here objects. I believe that you are supposed to follow a specific policy first, but am not sure if this is the case. I suggest researching policy first. Raggz (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing all criticisms from this article

Can everyone please note that there was never a consensus for removing all the criticisms from this article.

I don't care whether this article is merged or not but, no matter what happens, we can't just present the views of those who supported the invasion without also noting the competing views, per WP:NPOV. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1 - There was both explicit and tacit consensus. No objections to the rational for removal were raised.
2 - This article is about the rationale ******for****** the war. This is explicitly stated in title. This was already discussed, with no dissent. Do not be confused about what an encyclopedia is. It is not a debating society. Do you believe the views of athiests should be presented on the Religion of Islam page? Encyclopedias are not about entering fact based articles on a given topic, where then an additional secion is added where enemies of the main topic can tear it apart. In short, the athiests do not get to rip on all the worlds religions simply because they have a different perspective. The place for an article on the views of athiests is a wiki on Athiesm. Conversely, Muslems do not have a section where they rip a new one on the Atheists. The place for criticisms of the entry to war is, not surprisingly, on the Opposition to the Iraq War page. It already has it's own page. You must keep in mind that the wikipedis is not a debating society where all articles present every view. On pages that are specifically ABOUT ONE VIEW, like Islam, Evolution, The Big Bang theory, etc. Those articles should be filled front to back with a quality work about the subject. Certainly a reference to a different page that contains an alternative view strictly for comparison is reasonable, and common. Now, there is plenty of room for different viwes WITHIN the subject, take for example, the wiki page on the Universe. It contains sections on the origin of the universe, which include competing views. This is appropriate. But let us say that the article was not the Universe.... and was instead, Creationism. In that article, only different creationist views should be examined. They may not agree, but certainly scientific views have no place there. In other words, keep in mind the subject at hand, and do not stray. Topic creep is a serious evil in an encyclopedia. 72.245.21.50 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Sideshow, are you planning to go to the Opposition to the Iraq War page, and insert a "Support for the Iraq War" section at the end? If not, why not? You can see why resonable people would suspect bias. Is it your position that the views of those that support the Iraq War, have their views contained in the Opposition page as well? If you could explain why (or why not) that would be helpful Ryder Spearmann (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I like how An Inconvenient Truth handles this. In the LEAD, there are seven sentences. Six are about the subject, one gives context to objectors to Global Warming. I like the 7:1 ratio, how it flows. Who has another controversial article that works well with a 1:1 mix of pro and con? Global warming does not engage in ANY debate, really. It discusses the topic well. May I suggest that we use examples of controversial articles we like - or don't? Raggz (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
"I don't care whether this article is merged or not but, no matter what happens, we can't just present the views of those who supported the invasion without also noting the competing views, per WP:NPOV." In my opinion, you misunderstand NPOV. Encyclopedia articles are not really about debating, and if there are not enough relevant facts without needing to debate, maybe the subject is not yet ready for an encyclopedia until there are.
EXAMPLE: Before OJ Simpson was tried (or at least indicted) was an article premature? We could have had an article debating his guilt, but would it be an encyclopedia article? A lot of people think he was guilty, but do they get "equal time" in the LEAD or the article for OJ Simpson? Who says that NPOV involves a debate between those who think he was guilty and those who did not? I say that the article strikes exactly the correct balance for NPOV, facts and not debate. Raggz (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On tacit consensus

Some of the editors on this and related pages have invented the notion of tacit consensus. Please note that there is nothing at WP:CONSENSUS about tacit consensus, and invoking this as a rationale for anything is a flawed and disingenuous misrepresentation of official Wikipedia policy, and should not be tolerated. If this were a legitimate reason for making a controversial edit, then it would be spelled out clearly in the official policy. It is not. Thus if editors here and elsewhere insist upon using the notion of "tacit consensus" as a justification for their removals of information or other edits likely to be controversial, then I must insist that they go to Wikipedia_talk:Consensus and obtain community acceptance and approval of "tacit consensus" first. Thank you, Silly rabbit (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Silly rabbit, wrt tacit consensus, you state "If this were a legitimate reason for making a controversial edit...". I think you are making a mistake here, the reasons to make a contriversial edit remain as they always have been. Edits are made to improve the article (good edits). That is the reason. Also, as the edit happens first in the consensus model, the controversy comes later, thus the controversy is "yet to be seen".
Also, I think you have made an error that Wikipedia editors have invented the notion of "tacit consensus". There are over 3,000 hits for the phrase on Google, few pointing the wiki. I know it appears in documents as old as 1996, several years before the Wiki was born. In this light, the concept is a pre-existing one. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
More on Tacit Consensus, from the Sinhala language Wikipedia Consensus Policies page (I think well presented):
"One for all, and all for one
By encouraging consensus, Wikipedia is effectively encouraging individuals to sway the direction of the project on the whole, as long as the ideas being proposed resonate with the other contributors. While delving into the concept of consensus, as understood on Wikipedia, you will read "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and "Voting is evil" frequently. The inner meaning of those statements, and the core of the very policy you're reading right now can be equated with this section's title: if a single individual among thousands of contributors has one single idea which has merit, that idea will be seriously considered. That is not what democracy is.
Another facet of the background required for consensus which resonates with the musketeers' motto is trust. As opposed to a vote, consensus does not need to be explicit. Consensus can be tacit -- a vote can't. The original author of this section didn't call for a referendum before adding a completely new section to one of the very basic policies of this project. Tacit consensus on that change is what allows you to read this right now."

Ryder Spearmann (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully disagree with Silly. Silence is consensus where there is no polling. Were it not, no articles could be published, as no article has ever had all potential editors offer explicit concensus. For example, how can any edit have been made, without my explicit concensus, according to your rationale? I have given explicit consensus only on rare occasion, therefore, nothing outside of that should be published? It is a given that a lack of a proposition opposing an edit, is an integral part of concensus. The term "tacit concensus" is used to describe this basic and long standing truth with a simple phrasiology, and is supported in Wiki policy explicitly. Furthermore, there is no lock and key policy with regard to consensus. Intolerance of edits on wikipedia, where bold editing is explicitly encouraged as a basic pillar, is a chilling development in editor thought, it seems to me. Consensus and cooperation is good, certainly, yet just as certainly, there is no requirement for it. Tacic concensus is also an excellent tool to thwart what can be termed "NC bombs", where editors that wish to stop free editing of the wiki, can simply drop in on all talk pages, drop a "no consesus" line, then wander off to the next article to halt more editing. Do you have an effective solution to NC bombs? If so, what is it? Ryder Spearmann (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion on the matter. Moreover, if you wish to change official Wikipedia policy, the appropriate place to do it is at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus. However, at this moment invoking "tacit consensus" as if it were fully justified by existing policy is objectionable. Free editing is, and should be, encouraged. However, making controversial edits while hiding behind nonexistent policies is no good. If this is just a matter of making an edit, then there should be no need to invoke a "tacit consensus" line, so use of this rationale immediately raises the question as to why the editor felt the need to assert some kind of nonexistent "consensus." There is simply no way to justify it. The issue of an NC bomb is already dealt with in the Wikipedia:Consensus policy: If one or two editors are constantly taking eccentric positions, then the consensus policy has a loophole. If, however, there are legitimate objections by established editors, then actual consensus must be gained through negotiation. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, Silly rabbit, you are citing a standard wiki article, not wiki policy, you can check by carefully reading the top of the article. Be careful not to confuse the two. Here is the policy page. Please read it. Do a search to find "tacit consensus" Consensus Policy Ryder Spearmann (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to you below. You seem confused. Please seek clarification. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Editors, I have left the links to what I had called the Consensus Policy above, and I leave them there for you to check, though I have reason to doubt their official nature as there are fonts used in tabs and such that appear broken. I apologize in advance if I have somehow found a bogus or counterfeit page. Could someone please visit the page and see if they can discern what it is all about? Ryder Spearmann (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The page you found was at si.wikipedia.org rather than en.wikipedia.org. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we use the English Wikipedia official policy here. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for this, Silly, truly. "si" means what in this case??? It is in english though... so it somehow seems bogus/counterfiet? I appreciate that you had the patience to wade through this exchange until the nut of my error was rooted out, and my thanks for info on this "si" business. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Silly rabbit, you have cited a wikipedia source on counsensus. This is not a Wiki policy page, nor guidelines page, simply a Wiki article. Wiki policy explicitly states that the Wikipedia itself is not reliable, violating NPOV. Insisting that editors use it, is rather inappropriate. Regards Ryder Spearmann (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Summary: "Insisting that editors follow the established rules is inappropriate." WTF? Silly rabbit (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Silly rabbit, you did not cite wiki rules. You cited a known unreliable source. Perhaps the page you are looking for is here: Consensus Policy It contains specific approval on tacit concensus. Hope that helps. Also, still waiting to hear your solution to NC bombs. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ryder, I have no idea what you mean "known unreliable source." I gave a link to the official policy several times: please read the above a little more carefully. Also, I am very familiar with the policy, and there is no provision for tacit consensus. Since you are obviously confused as to the precise details of Wikipedia policy, I recommend that you go to Wikipedia_talk:Consensus and request clarification. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
When I go to your links, I get the wiki page on consensus. Not the Wiki Page on consensus policy. Do you not know that the wikipedia itself is a known unreliable source? Ryder Spearmann (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ryder, see WP:CONSENSUS this links to the official Wikipedia policy on consensus. So does Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:CON. If not, then there is something wrong with your preferences or browser, and it is not my problem. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Silly, you are in the right, and I am in the wrong on this, your link first paragraph went the the Consensus talk, page, not the actual policy page, so I mistook it for a standard article (as actual policy pages state as such at the very top, while the talke pages don't), so my sincere apologies for missing this. Also, the policy page I cited is very similar, though different to yours. I have reason to believe it is bogus in some way as fonts break in places. It has the entry on tacit concensus, which your link does not have. I am curious about the reason for this difference, but it is not relevant to this discussion, and I readily concede your links on policy. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Great allowances must be made for misunderstandings, particularly with new editors. See WP:BITE. Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Tacit consensus does not appear (to my knowlege) in any WP policy. It is merely a rhetorical device to ellicit more participation, and effort to clarify, and does not and cannot imply any edit contray to Policy. Editors may use rhetorical devices if they are used appropriately. Stating "I believe that we have tacit consent on this issue" is only another sentence. No editor may decree anything, but we may ask others if we have agreement. More participation is a good thing, and devices intended to advance Consensus are also good things. Rhetorical devices that violate Policy are bad things. I don't understand all the fuss. I would like to. Raggz (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
As I discovered quite by accident, the Sinhala language wikipedia explicitly recognizes tacit consensus (see above), so obviously we have a clear precedent for it's full adoption in wikipedia. So yes... why all the fuss? I think tacit consensus is in full use in the wikipedia right now, except like dent above one's lip, most people don't know the word for it, but it is still there. (Raggz, that mistake you said I would make? Well, here it is :) Ryder Spearmann (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Silly, I think I have a way to get to clearer pictire of tacit consensus. It comes to you in the form of some questions. If you ask for consensus on an edit affecting the work of others, and you don't hear from them, do you in fact have consensus? If so, how did you get it? If not, how can you make the edit given a wish to do so only with consensus? Then a minor mod, someone comes along and says "not sure I like the proposal." and then you never hear from them again either, and the talk page goes dead. What of the proposal based on consensus? I am concerned that silence becomes a crippling force in making edits. It seems that free editing, stopped in it's tracks by nothing more than silence, is a rather astounding circumstance. To my mind, silence is actually saying something. It is a vote of sorts. It says, "I don't care enough, or am not able to offer opposition." We have that now. Do you have a name for it? Ryder Spearmann (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Permenent Lack of Consensus: If I enter into TALK "I object to any changes within this article forever", we then have another rhetorical device, that of Permenent Lack of Consensus. By Consensus I may return in three years and expect no further edits? I object to this device of Permenent Lack of Consensus, and logically the only way that we could edit this article again would be by Tacit Consensus. If tacit consensus does not exist, then Permenent Lack of Consensus logically must. Which is preferable? Raggz (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Silly rabbit, (or anyone) how do we start the process to insert tacit consensus into policy? Raggz (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
One way is to begin a thread over at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus. Indeed, I myself am curious to see what comes out of this. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Raggz, that was an astounding explanation. Permanant Lack of Consensus. You win the Conceptual Understanding Device of the year award. As Silly has expressed curiosity wrt outcome, I think you just earned some respect on the issue. You have mine also. Best of luck to you. (I shudder to think that the fact that I have supported you on this will almost certainly result in sock/meat puppet harassment. But such is the environment in which we work. Gah.) Ryder Spearmann (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been afraid to look into what a "meat puppet" is. Don't tell me, they soun horrid. Raggz (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the topic at hand?

Hi folks, I don't see how all this talk of tacit consensus is useful. The reality is (despite whatever claims were made in the past) we don't have a consensus in favour of removing all the criticisms from this article. It seems to me that at least four editors (Silly Rabbit, Viriditas, FCYTravis and I) disagree with the proposal. If we wait a few days, I reckon that figure will rise as more editors happen by.

I'm not sure where this idea of a "permanent lack of consensus" came from. It seems to me that there's been no real discussion of the reasons for or against deleting the criticisms. Ryder and Raggz, if you still want to go ahead with your proposal, forget about "tacit consensus" and try to convince the rest of us that this article would be better without the criticisms.

The Removal of all Criticisms, and Criticisms section above contain both well formed argument and questions for those that do not offer consensus, yet of the 4 people you claim disagree with the proposal, none has engaged. If nobody disagrees with the proposal enough to engage in discussion of it... then I think the edit will happen. (regardless of statements of "no consensus") The response has been, instead of discussion, accusations of Sock/Meat puppetry, and attacks on the idea of tacit concensus. If the opposition to the change will get serious and enter a reasoned discussion, then we would be on our way. If you would please return to the sections I refer to and respond to them, that'd be great. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, you think this article should only reflect the views of people who supported the invasion. This looks to me like a fairly obvious WP:NPOV violation but I'm open to reasoned arguments. You'll have to come up with a more compelling case than "this is not a debating society" though. The comparisons with the OJ Simpson and global warming articles are not really appropriate because neither of those articles advances a particular point of view. In this case, you want to have an entire article about a current political controversy that only gives voice to one side of the argument.

Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you have a correct understanding. I think it should contain what is says it contains: the Rationale for the Iraq War. As currently appears in the article, there are four other pages in the Wiki that have treatments on the criticisms. How many pages have to support the same critical notions over and over again? How about we simply say "Cricisms to the Rationale for the Iraq War can be found at ...." and provide the references to those four other pages? Ryder Spearmann (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Does Global Warming devote half of the space to why Global Warming does not exist and half to the other argument? Does this article violate NPOV because it is directed to it's topic? I do not believe that encyclopedia articles are about people's "views". Try reading An Inconvenient Truth. It maintains a 7:1 ratio in the Lead between the topic and criticisms of the topic. I believe this article is a good model for this one. An Inconvenient Truth focuses upon the topic and would be a much worse article if they took our approach of debating global warming 50-50, and ignored the actual topic. An Inconvenient Truth is a good model of how to cover a topic and to include criticisms, a 7:1 ratio. Raggz (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well one thing is for sure, I would not expect ANY anti global warming on a page titled "The case for Global Warming". Ryder Spearmann (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's mentioned in the lead section and in the section titled "Social and political debate". —Viriditas | Talk 14:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Good. Do we think that Global warming gets the balance about right? Raggz (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research deletions

"The rationale for the Iraq War (i.e., the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent hostilities) has been a contentious issue since the Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001." This is original research. The rationale for the Iraq war does not seem a "contentious issue". There is a related controversy: The VALIDITY of the rationale. What the rationale actually was is best stated by the Iraq resolution. Who argues that it says what it says? No one can or is arguing against the stated rationale. Raggz (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Establishing long term Middle East military presence

U.S. General Jay Garner, who was in charge of planning and administering post-war reconstruction in Iraq, compared the U.S. occupation of Iraq to the Philippine model in a 2004 interview in National Journal: "Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East" , "One of the most important things we can do right now is start getting basing rights with (the Iraqi authorities)", "I hope they're there a long time.... And I think we'll have basing rights in the north and basing rights in the south... we'd want to keep at least a brigade", Garner added[5]

Also, the House report accompanying the emergency spending legislation said the money was "of a magnitude normally associated with permanent bases".[6]

The text above was deleted as original research. We cannot have a section about a hypothetical reason never supported by a single reliable source. U.S. General Jay Garner does not say that military bases had anything to do with the Rationale. Please do not revert without a reliable source for the hypothesis. Raggz (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libya

[edit] Libyan disarmament

Also included in the list of postwar justifications is Libya's agreement to abandon its WMD programs in December of 2003. Those who argue that this action was directly inspired by the invasion of Iraq point to a phone call Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi says he had with Libya's leader, Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi in April of 2003, in which he quotes Gadaffi as saying "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."[7] Negotiations between Libya and the United States and Britain on disarmament began almost immediately thereafter.[8]

On the other hand, it is argued by opponents of military intervention in Iraq that the Libyan case shows that traditional "carrot-and-stick" diplomacy can be successful in reducing the risk posed by "rogue states" without the need for invasion.[citation needed] For example, Flynt Leverett (former senior director for Middle Eastern Affairs at the United States National Security Council) and Martin S. Indyk (former Clinton administration official) argue that the agreement was instead a result of good-faith negotiations on a range of political, military and economic issues, intended to persuade Libya to move closer to the West.[citation needed] Libya had in principle agreed to surrender its programs in 1999, long before the Iraq War.[citation needed]

The above text was deleted as OR because it does not have a single reliable source that supports the hypothesis that the Rationale involved Libya. Raggz (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"===Bringing democracy to the Middle East=== One of the rationales that the Bush Administration employed periodically during the runup to the Iraq war is that deposing Saddam Hussein and installing a democratic government in Iraq would promote democracy in other Middle Eastern countries.[9] Vice President Dick Cheney stated in an August 2002 speech to the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, "When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace."[10]"

The text above was deleted because there is no reliable source that this was a rationale. Raggz (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations do not support the article's text

*^ Smith, Jeffrey R. "Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted". The Washington Post, April 6, 2007. Retrieved on May 9, 2007.

This article does not mention any shift by the administration.

*^ Sandalow, Mark. "NEWS ANALYSIS: Record shows Bush shifting on Iraq war". The San Francisco Chronicle, September 29, 2004. Retrieved on May 17, 2007.

This article discusses shifting - and how Bush did not shift. It is an error by Synthesis to use this cite for the text. Raggz (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the article specifically says: "Yet, heading into the first presidential debate Thursday, which will focus on foreign affairs, there is much in the public record to suggest that Bush's words on Iraq have evolved -- or, in the parlance his campaign often uses to describe Kerry, flip-flopped." I am restoring the deleted text, since the rationale for removing it is bogus. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Please reread the citations language (above) and the text of the article (below). Does the citation discuss "Hussein government's human rights record and promoting democracy in Iraq"? I suggest not. Raggz (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
"Shortly after the invasion, the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies largely discredited evidence related to Iraqi weapons and, as well as links to Al Qaeda, and at this point the Bush and Blair Administrations began to shift to secondary rationales for the war, such as the Hussein government's human rights record and promoting democracy in Iraq.[6][7]"

[edit] Revert and sandbox

I have reverted Raggz's recent run of edits, and moved his last version to a sandbox here in Raggz's userspace. Raggz, I know that some of the edits you made were OR deletions, and as such warrant some serious conversation. However, the overarching purpose of the edits was also to restructure the article in a fundamental way which I do not agree with. I have preserved the last version in userspace so that you can continue to work on that version without being disruptive here. When you have finished, perhaps you can summarize the revision succinctly here so that other editors can be included in the process. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with your revert. What is a "sandbox"?
The idea is to restructure the article so that the opposition to this topic is addressed in ONE section, so that the Reader may understand the topic. I would like to move all of the material attacking the Rationale for the Iraq war to a section where the Reader may get as much of this as may be desired.
Please read global warming and there admire how they have managed to collaborate, so that the Reader is not bogged down in arguments about why global warming could not exist. We have inverted their approach with a 7:1 focus on why the invasion's rationale was bogus. They have a 7:1 ratio on what global warming is about, with a bit of discussion (for context) on the opposition.
Please read An inconvenient truth. It does not suggest that Al Gore is a war criminal. It does not offer a forum for those who oppose global warming. It focuses on the topic.
I suggest that almost all of the "opposition" is inappropriate for this article. It could be moved to an appropriate topic, Why the Iraq war rationale is bogus. The Reader has a right top expect that the topic will be addressed and that the necessary links and limited contextual contextual contrasting views will be offered IF they want this. I strongly support ensuring that the Reader can click on links to the opposing arguments. I strongly oppose denying them their right to learn about the topic they have selected.
After reading the articles referenced above, does anyone believe that a 7:1 ratio of discussion against these topics would have improved them? Please read OJ Simpson. Millions of people believe that he is guilty of murder. Should this article debate this question? Raggz (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that you chose a bad article structure. By singling out certain topics as those limited to "critics", you structured the article in a manner reflecting a definite POV. Not only that, but it was based on a false distinction: for instance, it isn't just the critics who think that WMD were part of the rationale for the war, so why did you put that in the "Critics" section? I could make similar objections for each section in turn. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW: I don't see what An Inconvenient Truth nor O.J. Simpson have to do with the current article. I can't see any obvious parallels. This article is on a much more complex issue, and so has many more details than either of these examples. Also, An Inconvenient Truth has some serious stylistic problems of its own, and is a bad model for any article in my opinion. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
You are a better writer and editor than I am, Silly rabbit. I trust you, (once you understand what I may be thought to be raving about) to use sound editorial judgement. Would you rather restructure this article of have me continue my best efforts?
The articles I offer share two important similarities. (1) They handle controversial topics WITHOUT becoming a debate blog and (2) the Reader can use these articles. Which article is your favorite for these criteria? I have no doubt that you can find better ones. The point is to look at other articles that present their controversial topic effectively without losing the contextual background of objections. This article is a MUCH simpler topic. It is ONLY about the rationale for the Iraq war. It is not about the merits of the rationale. There are MANY articles to edit on that topic, but this is simple and easy (if we agree to make it so). Raggz (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Study: False statements preceded war

  • A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." - Associated Press
    • 935 false statements made in a two-year period. "Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both."
    • According to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism, "The Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

—Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds bad, but I notice that the big point this study constantly hints at but consistently strains to avoid directly addressing is whether they knew these statements to be false when they made them. So what if they repeatedly stated their stance? How many times have we heard the word "Change" during this election season already? Using the power of repetition to back up a point makes them no different than any other politicians. If they honestly believed it and it was later proven false, it does not make their intent malicious simply by retrospect as Lewis and Smith would imply. "Misinformation" suggests the malicious spreading of information which is known to be false, and there is no proof that this is the case here. As such, this study provides nothing more than a trivial statistic. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the intel was bad. No one disputes this. The claim for intentional misrepresentation is unfair - unless supported. Raggz (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no doubt the intel was accurate, there is no smoking gun. Which leaves us the question: "what happened to the numerous caveats in the NIE and warnings by other intelligence agencies around the world that the Bush administration made entirely different statements, i.e. we have evidence and know where the WMD's are?" Also, the impossibility of having an independent investigation into these discrepancies is troubling. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Read the report. How many examples do you require? "In a speech on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney flatly asserted that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet later wrote that Cheney's statement "went well beyond what our own analysis could support." Tenet was not alone within the CIA. As one of his top deputies later told journalist Ron Suskind: "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from? Does he have a source of information that we don't know about?'" —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The source calls it an 'orchestrated' campaign. Wikipedia wants reliable sources, so there should be no problem with this as long as it is cited and attributed. Wikipedia doesn't pass the judgement, the source does. So again, I think this should be included and the source mentioned. --68.72.38.42 (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote from an article about this:

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

This further justifies the argument about the intentions of the source, whether it is correct or not. --68.72.38.42 (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There was, as I see it, no consensus to remove this section. (Please go and read WP:CONSENSUS to find out what this means.) Furthermore, it is not Wikipedia policy to delete material which does not satisfy NPOV against consensus. See WP:NPOV/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. I don't know whether the material belongs in the article or not, but I find the cited reason for removal without discussion, to be highly suspect, as well as posting a warning to User:Viriditas' talk page instead discussing the matter here. My suspicions would be allayed if User:Raggz would engage in a good faith effort to balance the material either by editing it, or by providing suggestions here. Since he/she has not done so, I have reverted for the reason that the edit summary indicated an incorrect application of policy. Silly rabbit (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia, is to tell the truth. This article needs a lot of trimming. Since we now know that the administration made 935 false statements, including 235 by Bush and 244 by Powell to promote the war, we can throw out all of them as fabrications. From a historical context they can be summarized in one or two sentences in a history section. Taking out all the falsehood, what is left? Oil? What we do know is that the administration was determined to find a way to justify attacking Iraq, and that WMD was used as a "slam dunk" method to get the US into the war, probably just to get Saddam's head, as Bush probably got into his head that the "job hadn't been finished" by his father. He did not get that idea from Bush Sr. (who opposed attacking Iraq, and has declined to comment on his son's abysmal performance while W. is still in office), but more likely from peer pressure. As to 5 military bases bigger than anywhere else, it is more likely those came as a consequence, not as a rationale (now that we are here what can we do - well we could build some military bases). In 2005 the US had 106 bases in Iraq,[8] but only 14 were referred to as enduring. As to the rationale for the Iraq War, well what is left is cheap oil and Saddam's head. There are some alternate rationales indicated along these lines that can be kept. The rest, an enumeration of the 935 false statements, is unnecessary. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you've twice ignored the notices I have issued and reposted this, I will say this here to make sure it is not missed for a third time: Good-faith efforts to improve the article are encouraged, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for spreading personal opinions. The changes that you are proposing will not take place for a very simple reason: The purpose of this article, as outlined by the title, is to describe in a historical context the rationale which was used to go to war in Iraq. There already exists three other articles devoted to outlining the criticism of it, need we make this one into a fourth? This study finds little more than that some of the rationale were built on statements which would later prove false (Notice the report calls them false statements and not lies: Your statement that the rationale were, quote, "fabrications," is not supported by this study), and that during the months leading up to the war these rationale were argued by members of the administration several hundred times (Hence, orchestrated). The interpretation that many seem to be drawing from this study is that the rationale were known to be false at the time they were offered, turning the administration's actions into the deliberate and malicious spreading of misinformation. This is not espoused in the study, but even if it were, it would change nothing. Again, the purpose of this article is historical, not political: it is meant to explain to the reader what led the U.S. and others to war. The publishing of what is essentially a word-count study does not justify the wholesale removal of the historical content in the article in favor of yet more criticism. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 09:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The study has about as much airing in the article now as I think it deserves. I heartily agree with S0CO's sentiment that "The publishing of what is essentially a word-count study does not justify the wholesale removal of the historical content in the article in favor of yet more criticism." Silly rabbit (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In the sense that most people understand the word rationale, which is "Fundamental reasons; the basis", most of the article needs to go. If you wish to keep it you need to change the title to "Rationalization for the Iraq War", as rationalization means "to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes." I would prefer to keep the focus on the real reasons as outlined above. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but as you can see the consensus here is against your proposal. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
How can you determine a "consensus" in 2 hours with zero comments? Way too premature. First wait for someone to even make a formal proposal, then come back in 5 days to see if any consensus has been achieved. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to your repeated idea that "most of the article needs to go" with the exception of vague notions about Bush wanting "oil and Saddam's head". There is consensus against that, as you can see. Wikipedia is not supposed to push a point a view. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 19:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the question is, is the article about rationale or about rationalization? They are not the same. If it is about rationale most of it needs to go. If it is about rationalization, the title needs to be changed. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Press conference was scripted

This is important because it shows that from the beginning the press was kept from asking questions about the war. You can watch the video of the press conference at President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Rationale for the Iraq war
I'm not disagreeing that there is a point to be made here. The problem is that "we" aren't allowed to make it. Wikipedia policies do not permit the article to "build a case." The case must already exist, and points must already have been made elsewhere. There must be dozens of Iraq war critics who have observed that the press was not permitted to ask any questions, that the event was scripted, etc. Is there a notable critic who has made these observations? Silly rabbit (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
For more information, you can see WP:OR regarding one of the fundamental policies, that of no original research, and WP:NPOV that Wikipedia must attempt to maintain a neutral point of view. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The "point" was made by Bill Moyers. Read the references. I didn't want to use his diatribe, although you forced the point. To me it is sufficient to point out that the press laughed about the press conference being scripted, and to point out that "scripted" means "no questions". The video makes the point better than the transcript. Dozens? No only one is needed, although if the connection is not obvious then that one needs to be attributed. In this case it is obvious that the press wasn't allowed to ask any questions, even though about 200 million Americans failed to notice at the time. What you might want to do is expand on this by tracking down the criticism of the Moyers report, particularly by CBS. I wasn't able to quickly find it. See:[9] Just out of curiosity I wonder if the same person who was trying to ask the question was the same person who on April 13, 2004 asked "In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?"[10] Bush's answer was "I wish you would have given me this written, question, ahead of time, so I could plan for it." (punctuation added) 199.125.109.77 (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Iraqi Liberation

Go find your own references. Do you like this one from a toy company any better? http://www.themotorpool.net/US-M109-Self-Propelled-Howitzer-p/uni80021h.htm 199.125.109.77 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not my job to find reliable sources for your content. The burden of evidence lies on the contributor. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You like the White House better? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030324-4.html and if you don't like that one there are 29,000 more to choose from http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Operation+Iraqi+Liberation%22
In the spirit of collaboration it is much better to do a reference improvement, or edit the text. Edits which add content should not be reverted. Another easy tack is to look up the article 2003 invasion of Iraq, and use the reference used there, but wait, that article uses the above White House reference. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to be snide: the White House source would be perfectly adequate. But on the contrary, that policy says that if something cannot be properly sourced, then it must be removed. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A journalist recently said it was "a young lieutenant" who noticed the acronym. Is there any more information about this? 199.125.109.77 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup taskforce tag

Attention cleanup taskforce: you put a talk page tag on top of the article. Listing Port (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)